See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280114317

Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y: Toward a Construct-Valid Measure

Article  in  Journal of Managerial Issues · June 2008

CITATIONS READS

52 26,764

3 authors, including:

Richard E. Kopelman David J. Prottas

City University of New York - Bernard M. Baruch College Adelphi University
179 PUBLICATIONS   3,187 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,247 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Talent Assessment View project

alternative work schedules View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard E. Kopelman on 18 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES
Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008: 255-271

Douglas McGregor's Theory X and Y:

Toward a Construct-valid Measure*

Richard E. Kopelman
Professor of Management
Baruch College

David J. Prottas
Assistant Professor of Management
Adelphi University

Anne L. Davis
Colonel
Tooele Army Depot
Douglas McGregor's landmark
book, The Human Side of Enterprise
(1960), changed the path of manage-
ment thinking and practice. Ques-
tioning some of the fundamental as-
sumptions about human behavior in
organizations, he outlined a new role
for managers: rather than command-
ing and controlling subordinates,
managers should assist them in reach-
ing their full potential. At the foun-
dation of McGregor's Theory Y are
the assumptions that employees are:
(1) not inherently lazy, (2) capable of
self-direction and self-control, and
(3) capable of providing important
ideas/suggestions that will improve
organizational effectiveness. Thus,
with appropriate management prac-
tices, such as providing objectives and
rewards and the opportunity to par-
ticipate in decision making, personal
and organizational goals can simul-
taneously be realized. In contrast to
Theory Y, McGregor posited that con-
ventional managerial assumptions
(which he called Theory X) reflect es-
sentially an opposite and negative
view—viz., that employees are lazy,
are incapable of self-direction and au-
tonomous work behavior, and have
little to offer in terms of organiza-

• We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments of our colleagues, Abe Korman, Allen Kraut,
Hannah Rothstein, and Donald Vredenburgh as well as an anonymous reviewer. Earlier versions of
this article were presented at the 112th Meeting of the American Psychological Association (2004)
and the 22nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2007).

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. )0( Number 2 Summer 2008

(255)
256 THEORY X AND THEORY Y
tional problem solving. Hereafter, we
refer to McGregor's theorizing as
Theory X/Y.
Indicative of McGregor's impact,
Miner's (2003) review of 73 estab-
lished organizational behavior theo-
ries found that Theory X/Y was tied
for second in terms of recognition
and in 33rd place with respect to im-
portance. By the time The Human Side
of Enterprise was republished in 1985,
it had become a classic with the book
jacket reading like a Who's Who in
Management. Drucker hailed it as
"ever more relevant, more timely,
and more important." Townsend
called it "the most powerful and use-
ful book about people I've ever
read." Kanter claimed it contained
"profound and timeless truths." Wa-
terman declared it "a classic text that
is a fundamental touchstone for any-
one in management and organiza-
tional development." Bennis wrote
‘`. . . this book, more than any other
book on management, changed an
entire concept of organizational man
and replaced it with a new paradigm
that stressed human potentials, em-
phasized human growth, and ele-
vated the human role in industrial so-
ciety" (McGregor, 1985: iv).
However, as Miner noted in his
comprehensive (2002) text on organ-
izational behavior theories and re-
search, " W here are very few direct
tests of McGregor's formulation in
the literature. . . . Furthermore,
McGregor himself conducted no re-
search related to his formulations,
nor did he attempt to make his vari-
ables operational in any kind of meas-
urement procedures" (2002: 261). In
our view, McGregor's theorizing
about the effects of individual differ-
ences in managerial assumptions has
remained virtually unexamined due
to the absence of prior construct val-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
idation research. Clearly, it is not pos-
sible to test McGregor's theory if the
central construct—the assumptive
world (or cosmology) of the focal
manager—lacks a published, con-
struct-valid measure. In light of this
long overdue undertaking, the pres-
ent research reports on the develop-
ment and construct validation of a
measure of Theory X and Theory Y
assumptions/attitudes.
McGregor identified a number of
management practices that he
thought were consonant with Theory
Y assumptions (such as participative
leadership, delegation, job enlarge-
ment and performance appraisals).
Consequently—and unfortunately in
our view—tests of the efficacy of these
management practices were often in-
terpreted as a proxy for assessing the
validity of McGregor's theorizing.
Successful implementation of partic-
ipative leadership, for example, is at
best only tangentially related to
McGregor's theorizing. Moreover,
McGregor recognized that imple-
mentation of these practices with a
Theory X mindset will be limitedly
successful, with employees seeing
such techniques as disingenuous ma-
nipulations (Heil et al., 2000; Mc-
Gregor, 1966, 1967).
At the heart of McGregor's argu-
ment is the notion that managers' as-
sumptions/attitudes represent, po-
tentially, self-fulfilling prophecies.
The manager who believes that peo-
ple are inherently lazy and untrust-
worthy will treat employees in a man-
ner that reflects these attitudes.
Employees, sensing that there is little
in the job to spur their involvement,
will exhibit little interest and motiva-
tion. Consequently, and ironically,
the manager with low expectations
will lament that "you can't get good
help nowadays," oblivious as to the
 KOPELMAN, PROTTAS AND DAVIS
actual nature of cause and effect.
Closing the self-reinforcing cycle, the
manager feels vindicated; that is, his/
her low expectations were warranted.
Conversely, the manager who be-
lieves that employees are generally
trustworthy and desirous of growth
will facilitate their achievement.
McGregor's explanation was that the
manager had created conditions that
enabled "the individual to achieve
his [her] own goals (including those
of self-actualization) best by directing
his [her] efforts toward organiza-
tional goals" (1967: 78). Subse-
quently, numerous, more intricate,
psychological and social-psychologi-
cal mechanisms have been invoked to
explain this phenomenon (e.g., Ban-
dura and Locke, 2003; Eden, 1990;
Heil et al., 2000; McNatt and Judge,
2004).
McGregor (1957, 1967) noted that
some businesses were adopting prac-
tices that could be expected to yield
superior results, such as decentrali-
zation and delegation, job enlarge-
ment, participative/consultative
management, and performance ap-
praisal. However, he also observed
that these programs often were un-
successful due to the way they were
implemented. When those executing
the programs did so with Theory X
attitudes or within organizations with
Theory X climates, the programs
would be likely to fail—perhaps an-
other self-fulfilling prophecy.
Eden (1990) reported on numer-
ous field experiments demonstrating
that when managers were led to have
high expectations of some subordi-
nates (based on fictitious informa-
tion), the subordinates outper-
formed their peers. Attempting to
apply this finding to leadership train-
ing—but without using deception—
Eden et al. found weak results in seven
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
257
field experiments, results they char-
acterized as "a disheartening basis for
practical application" (2000: 195).
Indeed, Eden et al went on to say that
leadership training, in general, may
be unrealistic; some managers "have
it naturally and some do not, and
those that do not cannot be trained,
coaxed, or coached to have it" (2000:
204; emphasis added). However, nei-
ther the early nor the latter studies by
Eden and his colleagues speak to
McGregor's theorizing; in all of Eden
et al.'s research, expectations were ar-
tificially manufactured. In contrast,
McGregor's theory relates to organic
differences in managers' assumptive
worlds (or cosmologies). To wit per-
haps the Theory Y managers "have
it."
To our knowledge, only one field
investigation (Fiman, 1973) has been
conducted that speaks directly to the
posited effects of Theory Y manage-
rial attitudes. In Fiman's study of fe-
male clerical employees and their su-
pervisors in one corporation, a
perceived Theory Y managerial ori-
entation was positively related to job
satisfaction but unrelated to job per-
formance. Fiman's X/Y attitude items
were never published and the only
construct validity information Fiman
(1973) reported was split-half relia-
bility coefficients.
Although McGregor's Theory X/Y
may be characterized as representing
a dispositional mindset suggestive of
a one-best-way to manage, McGregor
recognized that a Theory Y manage-
rial style will not be appropriate in all
situations (Heil et al., 2000; Mc-
Gregor, 1967). In any event, before
McGregor's theory and numerous
theoretically-related propositions can
be researched (see the Discussion
section), it is necessary to develop a
construct-valid measure of the central
258 THEORY X AND THEORY Y
concept. Accordingly, we see the
present endeavor as a critical first
step in assessing the substantive valid-
ity of McGregor's theorizing.
METHOD
Sample
We distributed surveys to under-
graduate and graduate students in
business at two east coast colleges
from 2002 to 2006. Participation was
voluntary and anonymous. The final
sample consisted of 512 participants
with a mean age of 28 years (using
midpoints of categories and age 55
for 50+) and was 56% female. Nearly
80 percent of respondents were cur-
rently or recently employed, with
68% working in the private sector.
The largest categories of employment
were financial services (24%), health
care (20%) and miscellaneous pro-
fessional services (16%). Respon-
dents tended to work for either very
large organizations with over 1,000
employees (44%) or small organiza-
tions with fewer than 100 (32%), with
24% working for organizations of in-
termediate size. Their mean annual
salary was $55,800.
Measures
The survey consisted initially (N
159) of four principal sections: 17
items measuring Theory X and The-
ory Y attitudes (drawn from two
sources described below); 19 items
measuring Theory X and Theory Y
behaviors (drawn from two prior
works); five items measuring faith in
people; and five items measuring fast
food opinions. A fifth section consist-
ing of three items relating to leisure
time activities was added to the later
version of the survey (N = 353). With
regard to our theorized nomological
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
network, we reasoned that Theory X/
Y attitudes and assumptions would be
closely related to Theory X/Y behav-
iors and that Theory X/Y attitudes
and behaviors would be positively but
distally related to generalized faith in
people. However, we could see no
reason why opinions about fast food
meals and leisure-time activity pref-
erences would be related to Theory
X/Y attitudes or behaviors.
17seory X/Y Attitudes and Assumptions
were assessed by 17 items (see Appen-
dix) drawn from two sources. We in-
corporated ten items from a scale en-
titled "McGregor's Theory X-Y Test"
(Swenson, n.d.) and seven items were
selected from the "Theory Y/Theory
X Leadership Assumption Test"
(Scanlon Leadership Network, n.d.).
The latter source consisted initially of
ten items, but three were dropped be-
cause they mirrored items in the first
scale. All 17 items were scored on a
five-point Likert scale with end-points
ranging from "strongly disagree" to
"strongly agree." Scanlon's Leader-
ship Assumption Test is a product of
the Scanlon Leadership Network and
the measure appeared on their web-
site (www.scanlonleader.org ). Mc-
Gregor's Theory Y aligns with Scan-
lon's belief that organizations can be
more effective if information is
shared between managers and em-
ployees, and the latter are involved in
problem solving. It might be noted
that in both of McGregor's books
(1960/1985, 1966) an entire chapter
was devoted to the Scanlon Plan.
There is no available evidence sup-
porting the reliability and validity of
the scores on either the Scanlon or
the Swenson measures. Cronbach al-
pha for these 17 items (hereafter, the
"17-item X/Y attitude scale") was
.78. It should be noted that the au-
thors only became aware of Fiman's
 KOPELMAN, PRO1TAS AND DAVIS
(1973) research after the present in-
vestigation was well underway. Like-
wise, we have recently discovered a
few more scales published in organi-
zational behavior textbooks, some
combining attitudes and behaviors;
none with psychometric data or con-
struct validity evidence. Two non-
public-domain instruments exist, one
only available commercially (Teleo-
metrics International, 1995). A list of
all known X/Y scales, including prop-
erties and construct validity evidence
is provided in Table 1.
Timmy X/Y Behaviors were assessed
by 19 items drawn from two sources.
We incorporated 15 statements
adapted from Costley and Todd's
(1987) list of managerial actions that
result from Theory X and Theory Y
beliefs and we also used the four-item
measure developed by Miles (1964).
Costley and Todd (1987) listed seven
actions that result from Theory X be-
liefs and six actions that result from
Theory Y beliefs. We modified these
items slightly to improve clarity. A
sample item is: "The amount of re-
sponsibility given to employees
should be limited and controlled."
Miles' (1964) scale was originally de-
veloped to measure managers' atti-
tudes about participative leadership
policies. Miles' items were slightly
modified (e.g., changing "subordi-
nates" to "employees"). Response
options used the above described five-
point Likert scale. Cronbach alpha
for these 19 items (hereafter, the "19-
item X/Y behavior scale") was .71.
Faith in People was assessed by five
items (two forced choice items and
three agree-disagree statements)
from Rosenberg (1957). Positive re-
sponses indicate an absence of faith
in people; we reverse coded re-
sponses, with scores ranging from 1
(low faith) to 6 (high faith). Validity
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
259
evidence might be adduced from the
occupational choices of the 4,585 na-
tionwide college students who com-
pleted the instrument years ago (cf.
Robinson and Shaver, 1973). Stu-
dents with a high faith-in-people
score selected people-oriented occu-
pations such as social work, human
resource management, and teaching.
Both men and women with low scores
tended to select occupations such as
sales, finance, and advertising. Cron-
bach alpha in the present study was
.55.
Fast Food Opinion Scale consisted of
five items developed by the authors to
measure opinions about fast food
meals. A sample item is: "On the
whole, I would say that a meal con-
sisting of a McDonald's hamburger,
fries and soda is an ideal meal." Re-
sponse options used the same five-
point Likert scale. Cronbach alpha
for this study was .76.
Leisure-Time Activity items were also
developed by the authors to serve as
unrelated measures. A sample item is:
"Roughly how many hours per week do
you spend watching television?" Re-
sponse alternatives were 0-4 hours, 5-
10 hours, and more than 10 hours,
with corresponding scores of 1 to 3,
respectively. The other two leisure
items related to number of movies at-
tended annually and hours per week
spent reading for pleasure. Because
each of the leisure time items en-
tailed the expenditure of time, we
found moderate levels of intercorre-
lations: rs of .27, .30, and .34.
RESULTS
It has long been recognized that an
assessment of the construct validity of
a measure should precede substan-
tive research (e.g., Schwab, 1980). Ac-
cordingly, we conducted a number of
 Table 1
Listing of Extant Theory X/Y Attitude and Behavior Scales

Items Public Psychometric/Construct

Source Type Published Domain Description Validity Evidence
10 items, 5-point rating None published
1. Swenson (n. d.) Attitude Yes Yes
scale
10 items 4-point ratin g None published
2. Scanlon Institute (n. d.) Attitude Yes Yes
scale
10 items, no scale None published
3. Costley and Todd (1987) Behavior Yes Yes
provided
Correlations and
Four items, 5-point rating comparisons of group
4. Miles (1964) Behavior Yes Yes scale means
29 attitudinal items and
Attitude and Yes 12 behavioral items, Split-half reliabilities
5. Fiman (1973) No
8008IQUIUMSglaCIUMN

Behavior undefined rating scales

Chapman (in Borkowski, 15 items, 5-point rating
6 Attitude Yes No None published
' 2005) scale
8 pairs of forced choice None published
7. Greenberg (1999) Behavior Yes Yes statements
Osland, Kolb and Rubin 10 pairs of forced choice None published
8 Behavior Yes Yes
' (2001) statements
7 pairs of forced choice None published
9. Baron and Paulus (1991) Attitude Yes Yes
statements
Attitude and 12 pairs of forced choice
10. Gordon (1999) Yes Yes None published
Behavior statements
Teleometrics International 36 items, 7-point rating Self-published reliabilities
11 . Attitude Yes No and correlations.
(1995) scale
 KOPELMAN, PROTTAS AND DAVIS
empirical analyses to develop a con-
struct-valid measure of Theory X/Y
attitudes. Table 2 presents descriptive
statistics, reliabilities, and intercorre-
lations among the variables utilized in
these analyses.
Factor Analysis and Creation of an
Abbreviated Scale
We performed CFA using struc-
tural equation modeling with LISREL
(Version 8.53; Joreskog and Sorbom,
2002). We specified a model using
three "parcels" for each of the X/Y
attitude and X/Y behavior scales and
two "parcels" for each of the fast
food opinion and trust in people
scales. More specifically, the X/Y at-
titude and X/Y behavior scale parcels
were comprised of 6, 6, and 5 items
and 6, 6, and 7 items, respectively,
constituting all items of the two
scales. The two parcels related to
each of the fast food and trust in peo-
ple scales consisted of three and two
items. The CFA model's fit statistics
(x2 = 42.10, df = 29, p = .055, x2/df
= 1.45; GFI = .98; AGFI = .97; CFI,
.99; NFI = .98; RMSEA = .03) showed
that the measurement model had
very good fit. The ratio of x 2/df was
below the recommended value of 3
and the fit statistics values were at or
above the recommended thresholds
of 0.9 for NFL above 0.8 for AGFI,
and the RMSEA value was below the
recommended value of 0.10 (Hair et
al., 1998). All X/Y attitude items
loaded significantly on their assigned
latent constructs, although one of the
parcels for X/Y behaviors had a co-
efficient of .64, below the recom-
mended threshold of .70, and the two
parcels for fast food loaded at .68 and
.41. This model had a better fit than
alternative models where the three
X/Y attitude and three X/Y behavior
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. 30C Number 2 Summer 2008
261
"parcels" were loaded onto a single
latent variable (x2 = 274.73, df = 32,
p = .00, x2/df = 8.59; GFI = .90;
AGFI = .83; CFI, .90; NFI = .89;
RMSEA = .12) and where all ten par-
cels were loaded onto a single latent
variable (x2 = 597.51, df = 35, p =
.00, x2/df = 17.08; GFI = .81; AGFI
= .70; CFI, .69; NFI = .68; RMSEA =
.18).
Given the high degree of concep-
tual overlap among the 17 Theory X/
Y attitude items, we sought to deter-
mine if a shorter scale might be de-
veloped. We conducted a principal
axis exploratory factor analysis (EFA)
with Varimax rotation using meth-
odology similar to that employed by
Kelly and Lee (2002) and Sato
(2003). (Principal axis factoring is
the preferred exploratory-descriptive
method of factor extraction when an-
alyzing common variance. Orthogo-
nal (i.e., varimax) rotation yields fac-
tors that are maximally
independent.) There are varying
opinions concerning the sample size
required to perform factor analysis,
but it is generally accepted that 10 re-
spondents per item is sufficient (Tin-
sley and Tinsley, 1987), and our sam-
ple provided more than 20 cases per
item. We first conducted EFA on the
17 items, suppressing coefficient val-
ues (factor loadings) that were less
than .50. This analysis yielded four
factors with eigenvalues > 1.0. The
first factor, with an eigenvalue of 4.4,
accounted for 26.1% of the variance.
The second factor had an eigenvalue
of 1.30 and accounted for 7.6% of
variance, and the remaining two fac-
tors together accounted for 14.0%.
Five items loaded above .50 on three
factors. We then conducted a second
iteration of EFA, again suppressing
coefficients less than .50. Four items
were retained, loading on a single fac-
 l'0171.-01'Ai > d*** !PTIM-0 NO 'TO' > d** tPoPei-oml > d*
. sasamuand u! srpuoRullp uo maddr arras uoua ioJ stuldp yaequoij •areas maj!
-100J apnume Aix r. fi 2turtpxo ,afgos oPtIIPW A/X suloll agl jo pasyduroo s! glum wal!-E1 apnlply •S.1()!Autva = •tioa !sapul91y
= .(01mu = Z tgIumgJ = xas :giqugun tuppogaTeD . sasicigur zoj pasn (OS R- JOJ SS pun) auez Jo smociPlul glIm (05 < `617- 5b `bb-Ob '6E- 5E
'17E-OE `6z-gz `bz-Oz) a8ue1 a sr POSSOAX0 geM a8y '(ZgE = N) SUM! ampt oqi puu `(z617 = N) ginugl `(0017= N) ARM Jo.; idooxo I 1 c o1 90S = N *RioN

Number 2Summer 2008

(IL') ***lc' ***RE' ***917' ***lir LO . 170' 90' **9T • 80' OT ' 80' - **ZI' 9E' LtiE 1110 11- 6I 'CT
1.1 0E1 A/X
(ZL') ***99' ***E8' ***5Z' 90' 170' - 170' - 80' 170' **9I' *I I' - **ZI' 89' 08'E mat? 'ZI
- 17 'DV A/X
(L9') ***L6' ***ZZ' 90' 00' - 80'- 90' *I I' 60' **El' *II' 5.17' 5T'£ 1.1-1711 'II
0 - ET 1W A/X
ua (8L') ***17Z' 90' ZO.- LO' - LO' *01' *Z1' **£T' - **Z1 . Lb' OE'E Dual? '01
F.Z - LT 11y A/X
(cc') 00'- *II' *171 .- L0' ***LT' **bir £0' ***EZ' 6Z' b17' aidold '6
u! q uud
***PC **/2' co' - LO' LO' - 10' 10' 6L' tiZ . I RupeaN •8
X ams!al
7, *OE' LO' ZO' 90' - ZO' ***OZ .- I8' 68'1 sa!now .L
g
0 ainsIal
44
Z - *ff - 00' ZO'- 60' *ZI .- £8' 95'1 Al onisIal '9
(9 L') 10' - 170' 90' - ZO. 19' £1717 pool Jsrd 'S
***K . 90' ***817' Z9-Z 0 I' E 0.1111.12j, '17
**Pt' Mgt . LZ . 8Z 6C55 (000$) 'E
/Cirrus
£0.- 05' ITV I Xn 7
- T9.9 OE'8Z 05 V 'I
ET ZI TT OT 6 8 L 9 as JAI apiemuA

suopeia.uoa pue ‘sjuaipwaoa SppciegaH ‘sapspels anudipasaq

z mei
 KOPELMAN, PROTTAS AND DAVIS 263

Table 3
Factor Analysis of Theory X and Theory Y Attitude Items
# Description of Items Loading
1. Most employees can't be trusted. .72
2. Most employees will not exercise self-control and .61
self-motivation — managers must do this for them.
3. Most people are lazy and don't want to work. .60
4. Most employees have little ambition. .57
Eigenvalue 2.16
Percent of explained variance 54.10
Note. These four items resulted from two consecutive principal axis
factor analyses with suppression of coefficients less than .50.

tor. The items and loadings are
shown in Table 3. Replicating this
analysis with an oblique (Oblimin)
rather than a varimax rotation re-
sulted in the same four items loading
on a single factor.
We used these four items to form a
shortened measure of managers' un-
derlying assumptions about their em-
ployees. We next examined internal
consistency reliability estimates for all
the measures in the present research,
and reviewed evidence pertinent to
the convergent, substantive, and dis-
criminant validity of response scores
using the new four-item Theory X/Y
measure.
Reliability
Table 2 presents internal consis-
tency reliability estimates (Cronbach
a) on the diagonal. Alpha reliabilities
ranged from .55 to .78. The 17-item
X/Y attitude scale, the Fast Food
Opinion Scale, the new four-item X/
Y scale, the 19-item X/Y behavior
scale, and the 13-item X/Y attitude
scale (the 17 X/Y attitudinal items ex-
cluding those in the new four-item
X/Y scale) had the highest reliability
estimates (coefficient a = .78, .76,
.72, .71, and .67, respectively). Four
scales showed internal consistency es-
timates that exceeded Nunnally's
(1978) .70 benchmark. The (five-
item) Faith in People scale had rela-
tively low internal consistency relia-
bility (a = .55), but adjusting for
scale length (per the Spearman-
Brown prophecy formula), alpha
would have been .74.
Convergent, Substantive, and
Discriminant Validity
Correlations among the two meas-
ures of Theory X/Theory Y atti-
tudes—viz., the new four-item X/Y
scale and the remaining 13 X/Y atti-
tude items—and the other key varia-
bles comprising the theorized nom-
ological network are summarized in
Table 4. The four-item X/Y scale was
seen as conceptually identical to the
13-item X/Y scale, as closely related
to the 19-item X/Y behavior scale, as
distally related to the more generic

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008

264 THEORY X AND THEORY Y

Table 4
Correlations among Closely and Distally Related Constructs

Four-item 13-item
X/Y X/Y
Variables Attitudes Attitudes
Same Construce .66***
Closely Related Construct (Behaviors) b .51*** .38***
Distally Related Construct (Faith) e .25*** .22***
Unrelated Constructsd -.01 -.01
Note. aFour-item X/Y correlated with 13-item X/Y-13; bfour-item
X/Y-4 and 13-item X/Y correlated with X/Y Behaviors;
ccoffelated with Faith in People; dmean of correlations with
the fast food opinion scale and the three leisure time pursuit
items (r-to-z transformations).
***p < .001, two-tailed.
Faith in People scale, and unrelated quite low at r = -.01 and r = -.01, re-
to the Fast Food Opinion scale and spectively. Further, neither the four-
the three leisure pursuit items. nor 13-item X/Y attitude measure was
A strong relationship was found be- sizably related to the four biographic
tween the new four-item measure and variables measured: age, sex, salary,
the 13-item X/Y attitude scale (r = and tenure. Examining correlations
.66), and this association exceeded using absolute numbers (because the
the correlation between the new four- coding of sex was arbitrary), rs
item measure and the closely related ranged from .04 to .16 with the four-
construct of Theory X/Y behaviors (r item scale and from .09 to .13 with the
= .51). Notably, the four-item X/Y at- 13-item pool. Overall, therefore, the
titude measure was more highly re- pattern of associations is supportive
lated to the 19-item X/Y behavior of the theorized nomological net-
scale than was the 13-item X/Y atti- work.
tude scale ( r = .38). Both the four- We systematically controlled for
item and the 13-item X/Y measures the potential confounding effects of
were moderately related to the dis- biographic variables by performing a
tally related construct of Faith in Peo- hierarchical regression. Entering age,
ple (rs = .25 and .22, respectively). As sex, salary, and tenure in Step 1, we
anticipated, mean correlations be- regressed in Step 2 the four-item X/
tween the four- and 13-item X/Y at- Y measure on the six dependent var-
titude measures with the four concep- iables comprising the nomological
tually unrelated measures (fast food network (Model 1). We also per-
attitude, movies attended, hours formed this analysis by regressing the
spent watching television, and hours 13-item X/Y measure in Step 2 on the
spend reading for pleasure) were same dependent variables (Model 2).

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. )0C Number 2 Summer 2008

 KOPELMAN, PROTTAS AND DAVIS
As shown in Table 5, the Beta coeffi-
cient for the four-item X/Y scale
when regressed on the 13-item X/Y
scales was .65 (almost identical to the
simple bivariate correlation of .66).
Similarly, Beta coefficients for associ-
ations between the four- and 13-item
X/Y measures and the other six vari-
ables in the nomological net differed
from correlations on average by
about .03. Further, the significance of
Step 2 (with the four-item measure as
the independent variable) paralleled
the theorized network of relation-
ships: F = 60.25 (same construct), F
= 25.04 (closely related construct), F
= 8.19 (distally-related construct),
and for the four unrelated constructs,
F ranged from .94 to 2.65.
We also performed a post hoc anal-
ysis to see if X/Y attitude scales were
related to industry, along the lines of
the prior research on occupation and
scores on the Faith in People scale.
We compared 216 participants work-
ing in more caring industries (health-
care, travel, non-profit, public utility,
and government) to 233 who worked
in financial services, retail, and mis-
cellaneous professional services
(which included accountants, con-
sultants, and attorneys). We found no
significant difference in X/Y atti-
tudes (for 17-item X/Y attitude scale
( t(447) = .30, p = 77, d = .03); how-
. sure and presented construct validity
ever, we did replicate the earlier find-
ing that the former had greater faith
in people (t(446) = 2.84, p < .01, d
= .27) .
Further, we sought to examine the
generalizability of our results by per-
forming our EFA analyses separately
for respondents with less than three
years of tenure on their current job
and those with three or more years of
job tenure. Using a cut-point of three
years is meaningful because the US
Bureau of Labor Statistics (US De-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
265
partment of Labor, 2006) reports that
the median tenure of wage and salary
workers in the private sector in 2006
was 3.6 years. The EFA results for the
two subgroups yielded very similar
four-item scales, and they would have
been identical except one item
loaded at .49 after the first iteration
and was dropped from the second
EFA analysis, with the minimum load-
ing for retention being .50.
The present evidence suggests that
the new four-item measure of Theory
X/Y assumptions/attitudes is psycho-
metrically sound and reasonably con-
struct valid. The scale taps most of the
central concepts pertinent to Theory
X/Y—viz., whether employees are
lazy, are trustworthy, are capable of
self-control and self-motivation, and
have ambition. Accordingly, it would
seem appropriate to use this measure
in the conduct of substantive re-
search regarding relationships be-
tween individual differences in X/Y
assumptions/attitudes and variables
related to human behavior in organ-
izations.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Summarizing results, we have de-
scribed the development of a new
four-item Theory X/Y attitude mea-
evidence. The measure is content
valid, has adequate reliability, and be-
haves as postulated with respect to a
theorized nomological network.
However, there are a number of
limitations and areas for future re-
search that need to be addressed.
First, the present validation evidence
was provided primarily by employees
who also happened to be students. Al-
though we found very similar results
upon splitting our sample based on
years of work experience, it would be
 Table 5
Hierarchical Regression of Four-item and 13-itemTheory X/Y Attitude Scales
on Closely and Distally-related Constructs
t-
C)1 Two Models with Dependent Variables - Constructs
Four-item and 13-item Same Closely Distally Four Unrelated Constructs
X/Y Attitude Scales as the X/Y X/Y Faith Fast
rri Independent Variables Attitude Behavior in Food Leisure- Leisure- Leisure-
in the Second Steps 13-item 19-item People Opinion TV Movies Reading
(Au)
- Modell
Theory X/Y Attitude 4-item
c.) /3 (second step) .65*** .47*** .22*** .07 -.03 .01 .06
AR 2 (second step) .40 .21 .05 .01 .00 .00 .00
o .01
AF (second step) 271.47*** 106.37** 19.61*** 1.93 .16 .88
Total R2 (first step) .04 .04 .05 .00 .03 .05 .03
Total R2 (second step) .44 .25 .10 .01 .03 .05 .03
Total F (second step) 60.25*** 25.04*** 8.19*** .94 1.37 2.65* 1.25
f'D

IN7
Model 2
C/)
Theory X/Y Attitude 13-item
/3 (second step) .37*** .27*** .04 -.09 .07 .05
1 AR 2 (second step) .13 .07 .00 .01 .01 .00
AF (second step) 59.18*** 26.62*** .46 2.17 1.35 .71
Total R2 (first step) .04 .05 .01 .02 .04 .03
Total R2 (second step) .17 .12 .01 .03 .05 .03
Total F (second step) 15.24*** 10.29* .65 1.78 2.93* 1.84
Note. In each case, age, gender, salary, and tenure were added in Step 1. /is of age, gender, salary, and tenure are not
shown for space reasons. The four-item Theory X/Y attitudes and the 13-item Theory X/Y attitude scales were
added in the second step in separate analyses.
*p < .05, two-tailed; **p < .01, two-tailed; ***p < .001, two-tailed.
 KOPELMAN, PRCYITAS AND DAVIS
desirable to examine data drawn di-
rectly from a field setting. Second,
part of the construct validation pro-
cess should include the examination
of substantive results. We would have
increased confidence in the validity
of our measure if we had collected
data showing that work groups led by
Theory Y managers had higher levels
of employee creativity, and perhaps
even superior levels of work-unit per-
formance. Third, we view the new
four-item Theory X/Y attitude mea-
sure as a start, and not the "final
word" in terms of instrument devel-
opment. Our pool of 17 items was
comprised of far more Theory X (13)
than Theory Y statements (four) . This
may have contributed to the four-
item Theory X/Y scale being com-
prised solely of Theory X statements.
Accordingly, future research, draw-
ing on an expanded and more evenly
balanced set of Theory X/Y state-
ments, might yield a different, possi-
bly multidimensional measure. This
would empirically address one re-
viewer's suggestion that the four-item
scale might be alternatively labeled a
Theory X scale. Future research
should also attempt to tease out ge-
neric versus personal attitudes (i.e.,
towards "employees in general" ver-
sus "me as an employee"). Perhaps
the present research may spur the un-
dertaking of additional construct val-
idation research.
Yet, as we noted earlier, the paucity
of substantive research on the effects
of Theory Y managerial assumptions/
attitudes may be attributed to the ab-
sence of a construct valid measure
that is freely available to researchers.
How can McGregor's theory be tested
if the focal construct has essentially
gone unmeasured? Furthermore, in-
terventions consistent with Theory Y
attitudes, such as participative lead-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
267
ership, should not be viewed as prox-
ies for measuring managerial atti-
tudes. Yet the key issue that seemingly
has eluded most management schol-
ars, even to this day, is that Theory Y
pertains to an individual difference
variable reflecting assumptions about
people at work—it is not a specific set
of recommended management prac-
tices. For example, in his book review
of Douglas McGregor, Revisited, Jacobs
called the authors—Heil, Bennis, and
Stephens—to task for balking "at in-
volving workers to the degree con-
templated in the Scanlon plans,"
rather instead endorsing "the diluted
tonic of open book management as
an acceptable substitute" (2004:
295).
There are many fascinating sub-
stantive questions that can be re-
searched now that the more funda-
mental task of construct validation
has been initially addressed. We list a
few below.
Coaching and Development. Mc-
Gregor (1966) asserted that manage-
rial attitudes reflect deep-seated (and
possibly unconscious) beliefs; simi-
larly, Locke (2003) observed that the
Pygmalion effect does not operate
consciously and that leaders deny
that they treat different people differ-
ently. Perhaps this partially accounts
for the difficulty Eden et al. (2000) en-
countered in using one- to three-day
workshops to "train" managers to
adopt successfully the Pygmalion
Leadership Style. Along these lines,
Heil et al. wrote: "Douglas Mc-
Gregor's most important legacy was
neither Theory X nor Theory Y. It was
his insistence that managers question
their core assumptions about human
nature. . . ." (2000: 20). Thus, our
measure of Theory X/Y attitudes
might serve as a self-administered di-
agnostic tool that enables managers
268 THEORY X AND THEORY Y
to achieve greater self-awareness of
their attitudes and assumptions about
managing people at work.
There has also been general agree-
ment among both academics and
practitioners that a new social/psy-
chological contract has been emerg-
ing—one that emphasizes new em-
ployer and employee responsibilities.
Employers are now expected to pro-
vide training, education, and skill de-
velopment opportunities, involve em-
ployees in decision making, and foster
challenging and stimulating work op-
portunities; and employees are now re-
sponsible for developing their own ca-
reers, taking initiative, and
participating in organizational deci-
sion making (Boswell et aL, 2001).
From this perspective, the new em-
ployment relationship assumes a The-
ory Y view with respect to what em-
ployees are willing and able to
contribute to the organization, with
corresponding employer responsibili-
ties.
Boundary Conditions. Are there
boundary conditions that moderate
the efficacy of Theory Y managerial
attitudes? Does organizational cli-
mate serve as one such boundary con-
dition; for example, will a manager
with Theory Y inclinations be less suc-
cessful in a command-and-control
type of environment? Are Sutton and
Woodman (1989) correct in their
conjecture that a Theory Y manage-
rial style will be more effective where
the work entails challenge and uncer-
tainty? Will employee expectations
about how they should be managed
moderate the effectiveness of Theory
Y assumptions/attitudes?
Relatedly, there appears to be an
increasing tendency for modern
firms to adopt organic structures with
participative involvement-oriented
cultures, empowered self-managed
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008
teams, and managers serving as
"coaches" or "facilitators." This is in
contrast to traditional mechanistic
structures with control-oriented cul-
tures emphasizing managerial com-
mand and control (Stevens and Ash,
2001). Implicitly, the decision to em-
power workers and to assign corre-
sponding managerial behaviors as-
sumes a TheoryYmindset, whereas the
traditional manner of organizing work
could be seen as more Theory X.
It is possible that it may be an over-
simplification to categorize a man-
ager as having either a Theory X or
Theory Y mindset. According to
leader-member exchange theory
(Dansereau et aL, 1975), managers
have different types of relationships
with subordinates who are in-group
members versus those who are out-
group members. Furthermore,
Campbell and Swift (2006) found ev-
idence that managers differ in
whether they make internal or exter-
nal attributions for good and bad per-
formance, depending on whether the
subordinate is an in-group member
or not. It is possible that managers
have a Theory Y mindset with respect
to in-group members and a Theory X
mindset with respect to out-group
members and engage in correspond-
ingly different managerial behaviors.
Consequences. Most fundamentally,
McGregor's theorizing about the ef-
fects of managerial assumptions has
not been rigorously examined. Using
field data, the hypothesis that work
units led by managers with a Theory
Y orientation will be generally more
effective could be tested—of course,
with performance data at the work-
unit level. Other theoretical issues
might also be researched—e.g., how
enduring are the effects of a Theory Y
orientation? Along these lines, Liden,
 KOPELMAN, PROTTAS AND DAVIS 269

Wayne and Stilwell (1993) found that criminals or as if we're on parole—

initial managerial expectations influ-
enced leader-member exchanges, but
the effects on performance dissipated
after six months.
There is no shortage of books on
leadership. Taylor (2004) reported
that Amazon listed 59,366 book tides
under the heading "leadership." Yet
a survey of 40,000 workers from 350
organizations found thousands of ex-
amples of poor leadership (Taylor,
2004). Sample comments included:
"They [supervisors] treat us like
treating us like we mean nothing and
they have no problem getting rid of
us." "This is a very negative, control
place. . . ." "I have a manager that
doesn't listen and simply wants to be
the boss." Perhaps if more managers
operated according to Theory Y as-
sumptions, Dilbert's day-to-day expe-
riences with the "pointy-haired boss"
would be of less interest. But before
we can test McGregor's Theory Y we
must be able to measure the focal
construct.

APPENDIX
Items Measuring Theory X/Y Attitudes and Assumptions
I. Most people will try to do as little work as possible.
2. For most people, work is as natural as play or recreation.
3. Most employees must be closely supervised to get them to perform up to
expectations.
4. Most employees actually prefer to be told exactly what to do rather than
having to figure it out for themselves.
5. Most employees do not care much about the organization's goals.
6. Most employees would prefer increased responsibility to increased job se-
curity.
7. Most people will not use their own initiative or do things that they have not
been specifically assigned to do.
8. Employees generally do not have much to contribute when asked to partic-
ipate in making decisions or solving problems.
9. It is just basic human nature — people just naturally dislike work.
10. Most employees will not exercise self-control and self-motivation — manag-
ers must do this for them.
11. Most employees have little ambition.
12. Most people do want responsibility.
13. Most employees prefer to have someone else set their goals and objectives.
14. Most people work to eat and pay their bills rather than because they need
to solve problems and be creative.
15. Most employees prefer supervising themselves rather than close supervision.
16. Most people are lazy and don't want to work.
17. Most employees can't be trusted.

References

Bandura, A. and E. A. Locke. 2003. "Negative Self-efficacy and Goal Effects Re-
visited." Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 87-99.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008

 270 THEORY X AND THEORY Y

Baron, R. A. and P. B. Paulus. 1991. Understanding Human Relations: A Pratical

Guide to People at Work. New York, NY: Allyn and Bacon.
Boswell, W. R., L. M. Moynihan, M. V. Roehling and M. A. Cavanaugh. 2001.
"Responsibilities in the 'New Employment Relationship': An Empirical Test
of an Assumed Phenomenon." Journal of Managerial Issues 13: 307-327.
Campbell, C. R. and C. 0. Swift. 2006. "Attributional Comparisons Across Biases
and Leader-Member Exchange Status." Journal of Managerial Issues 18: 393-
408.
Chapman, A. 2005. "X-Y Theory Questionnaire." In Organizational Behavior in
Health Care. Ed. N. Borkowski. Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
Costley, D. L. and R. Todd. 1987. Human Relations in Organizations (3rd ed.). St.
Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Dansereau, F., G. Graen and W. Haga. 1975. "A Vertical Dyad Linkage Approach
to Leadership within Formal Organizations." Organizational Behavior and Hu-
man Performance 13: 46-78.
Eden, D. 1990. Pygmalion in Management. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
D. Geller, A. Gewirtz, I. I. Gordon-Terner, M. Liberman, Y. Pass, I.
Salomon-Segev and M. Shalit. 2000. "Implanting Pygmalion Leadership Style
through Workshop Training: Seven Field Experiments." Leadership Quarterly
11: 171-210.
Fiman, B. G. 1973. "An Investigation of the Relationships among Supervisory
Attitudes, Behaviors, and Outputs: An Examination of McGregor's Theory Y."
Personnel Psychology 26: 95-105.
Gordon, J. R. 1999. Organizational Behavior: A Diagnostic Approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Greenberg, J. 1999. Managing Behavior in Organizations (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., R. E. Anderson, R. L. Tatham and W. C. Black. 1998. Multivariate Data
Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Heil, G., W. Bennis and D. C. Stephens. 2000. Douglas McGregor, Revisited: Man-
aging the Human Side of the Enterprise. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
Jacobs, D. 2004. "Book Review Essay: Douglas McGregor—The Human Side of
Enterprise in Peril." Academy of Management Review 29: 293-311.
Joreskog, K. G. and D. Sorbom. 2002. LISREL 8.53. Chicago, IL: Scientific Soft-
ware International, Inc.
Kelly, K. R. and W. Lee. 2002. "Mapping the Domain of Career Decision Prob-
lems." Journal of Vocational Behavior 61: 302-326.
Liden, R. C., S. J. Wayne and D. Stilwell. 1993. "A Longitudinal Study on the
Early Development of Leader-Member Exchanges." Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy 78: 662-674.
Locke, E. A. 2003. "Good Definitions: The Epistemological Foundation of Sci-
entific Progress." In Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science (2nd ed.).
Ed. J. Greenberg. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McGregor, D. M. 1967. The Professional Manager. Eds. W. G. Bennis and C.
McGregor. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
1966. Leadership and Motivation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1960/1985. The Human Side of Enterprise. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XX Number 2 Summer 2008

View publication stats